Sheldon Wolin: Can Capitalism and Democracy Coexist?

Sheldon S. Wolin, born in 1922, is an American political philosopher and writer and Professor of Politics, Emeritus, at Princeton University.These interviews with the journalist Chris Hedges certainly give you a lot to think about – where to start……….Wolin’s contention is that we live under a system of “inverted totalitarianism” where the powers that be try to make the masses as passive as possible, rather than actively trying to mobilise them, as under, for example, the Nazis in Germany or under Stalin in the Soviet Union.  He talks mainly about America, but what he says can be applied to other developed states.“Inverted totalitarianism”, he says, is state centred only in parts; corporate capitalism has taken over the media, the education system, academia, law making – all democratic institutions have been or are being eroded.  There is a sham “opposition” consisting of the Democratic Party in the USA (by implication, the Labour Party in the UK); whose role it is to deal with some of the worst excesses of the system without challenging it, to create the pretence of “choice”.The only criticism allowed is mild rebuke; anything else is seen as subversive.  The media works towards the same ends as the government.An interesting piece of information which I didn’t know – apparently the US Republican Party has, in effect, been bought by two brothers – the Koch brothers.  Does anyone know more about this?  Well, I guess the Republican Party is a concern like any other – but what a sign of the times.As well as having co-opted all institutions to their aim of serving corporate capitalism, a modern superpower operates in secret; the surveillance apparatus has become formidable (as Snowdon found out).  He claims there has been a war on whistle blowers under the Obama administration.Also, there has been a deliberate “destruction of the public” as a group, a fragmentation of interests with the state powers and the media colluding in turning one group against another; workers against the unemployed, able-bodied against disabled, young against old.  You are encouraged to think just about your own group, and the victimhood of your own group – whose grievances are caused by another group.  If you don’t have it (a benefit, a certain good – they shouldn’t have it.)  You start to internalise what the propagandists say; it’s your own fault you are poor.Everybody is caught up in the demands of the moment – there is no time for reflection.  Political leaders are caught up in this complex world, too, with its dangerous weaponry and ever changing demands.  For the majority, the all-encompassing worry s to get a job, keep a job, pay the bills – with no time for anything else.So what is Wolin’s alternative world?  Does he believe in revolution?  He says yes, although he thinks the word “revolution” has been usurped and that maybe we should search for a synonym to capture fundamental change, which would discard notions of violence and all the other baggage that comes with it.  We ought to search for a new vocabulary to express what we mean with radical change.  Alexis de Tocqueville, the French political thinker is mentioned with his ideas of participatory democracy; viable local democracy as opposed to our “manufactured democracy”.  The problem, Wolin thinks, is centralised power.Where should the impetus for radical change come from, with the great majority of workers being too exhausted by day-to-day living to have the energy to reflect and to oppose in any way?  Maybe, he reflects, opposition has to come from people who are lucky enough to have enough energy and free time to think and reflect.  Sounds to me that he must mean “intellectuals” of some kind of independent means, although he is very aware of the dangers of an elite, a vanguard, also mentioning Bakunin’s warning that power corrupts.But with ordinary people becoming exhausted by the very process of living – can people outside this start a revolutionary process?   After some discussion of imminent environmental catastrophe, the question is posed; “if we don’t respond, will we be committing “collective suicide”.  “Yes”, he responds.For me, the mention of the French essayist, Julien Benda and his attack on the intellectual corruption of the age: “La Trahison de clercs” – “the Treason of the Intellectuals” struck a chord.  To an extent, intellectuals have to earn a living as much as anybody else, with the ending of the tenure system in universities, the “proletarisation” of the workforce has reached the upper echelons as well and many professors are under huge pressure to publish paper after paper.  But some come from wealthy families and I suspect that for them as well, careerism can take over, with the accompanying self-censorship and the avoidance of taboo subjects.I recently read Steven Pinker’s “The Better Angels of Our nature” and even though I enjoyed the book, and can see that he presents a good argument for many of his ideas (not all), the danger is that it can leave the reader with too much of a feel-good factor, the idea that western “democracy” will come good in the end, you’ll see.In the end, the interview ends with a reference to Max Weber’s calling us all to a “life of meaning”, that whether “the cause” seems doomed or not, you must resist anyway.Your own moral integrity is at stake.

Thanks for the update on the Koch brothers and American/Canadian politics!What worries me is how on earth is any meaningful fight back against this system going to start, with everyone between the ages of 20 and 65 (or beyond) fully occupied just with keeping afloat in an increasingly competitive labour market.  Do you see any way out?  Do you think, like Wolin seems to be suggesting, that resistance will have to come from intellectuals with enough time and energy to do something – with the corresponding dangers of vanguardism?  it is not just the exhaustion of the general populace which mitigates against them actively trying to do something, it's the fear factor as well.  Even union membership these days is frowned upon.Also, it seems to me that we are being betrayed by society's "intellectuals", those who are independent enough financially not to have to worry about their livelihood.  Some speak out, but not enough.